Democracy in America

Tocqueville argues that Europe is a challenging place to study democracy, as it is difficult to evaluate its successes when democracy struggles against its opponents. In contrast, democracy is well established in the United States, so “its style is natural and all its movements are free” (187).

First, Tocqueville notes that despite what Europeans suppose, great men in America are rarely drawn to politics, despite the greater voting rights they enjoy. In an analysis that betrays his aristocratic sympathies, Tocqueville argues that when most men have to work for a living, they “never find the time or the means” to reach deep intellectual understanding of government (188). At the same time, most voters are suspicious of anyone of elite background seeking political power and would not vote for them.

Instead of suffrage accomplishing political success, Tocqueville argues that times of crisis allow great leaders to emerge and gain popular support. This was most obvious during the American Revolution. He also argues that the educational and moral traditions in New England are developed enough that good political leadership still exists there. This is not the case in the federal House of Representatives, whose members Tocqueville calls “obscure persons” (191). This tendency is tempered in the Senate, as its members are chosen by state legislatures. Tocqueville considers this a kind of refining process that brings out the “elevated thoughts” of the majority (192). He argues that this system will need to be adopted more widely in order for the American experiment to endure.

Tocqueville then considers the benefits and risks of frequent elections in a democracy. He argues that infrequent elections risk “revolution,” while frequent ones result in “public affairs in a state of continuous volatility” (193). Tocqueville then cites the Federalist Papers, specifically Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson, to prove that the negative effects of elections were well understood.

Tocqueville then turns to public administration and public officials in American democracy. Tocqueville considers it a sign of social development that all public officials are paid and anyone can seek public office or an administrative position. But offices are not well paid, so only people “moderate in their ambition” are drawn to them (195), as more talented individuals will choose better-paying paths. American officials have more freedom to operate than those in monarchies.

Tocqueville argues that America is characterized by “administrative instability” and practices are not well documented. While he finds this somewhat alarming, he also notes that Americans achieve their “administrative education” by other means, as democracies only come into truly developed form after their society is “very civilized” and “very learned” (199). Tocqueville, then, suggests that democracy develops best as a result of long traditions and established practices.

Tocqueville next turns to the socioeconomic effects of a democratic government. He argues that all societies will naturally have upper, middle, and lower classes. He argues that public expenditures will be highest in a democracy, as poor people will be able to govern and vote for taxes that they will not themselves pay. On the other hand, he admits that aristocratic governments often fail to understand “how the general well-being will work toward their own greatness” (202). Popular governments, in contrast, are constantly driven by a “spirit of improvement” (202). Democratic citizens become increasingly aware of their needs, so taxes rise in democracies. This also results in public officials being paid well, as the people sympathize more with them and can imagine their needs. Tocqueville compares what democracies are capable of compared to aristocracies in terms of large-scale projects. He argues that the United States would struggle to mount a major war due to lack of military conscription and that common peoples lack the foresight to understand the dangers posed by a “crisis” (214).

While he admits that democracies are better for the well-being of the majority, Tocqueville retains his belief that aristocratic elites and more enlightened individuals have key advantages in some areas. He notes that popular passions are particularly dangerous in foreign affairs, as Americans would have become embroiled in the French Revolution without George Washington’s moderating influence. Tocqueville considers aristocracy superior in conducting a rational foreign policy, declaring that “an aristocratic body is a firm and enlightened man who does not die” (220). Aristocratic values, then, are a counterweight to popular enthusiasms, one that Tocqueville considers essential to conducting international affairs.